Well, hats off to her for pissing on The Goblin King's chips a few hours after his speech, but isn't her excuse the most pathetic you've ever heard?
The mother-of-four told the Labour conference it was time to "step back" from politics and put her family first.
It is broadly agreed that it is babies and young children who need their Mum's undivided love and attention most (up to age 2, 3 or 4 according to personal views). Her kids are aged between 4 and 11. So hasn't she left this career break a bit ... er ... late?
F***ing bitch.
Unfinished business
1 hour ago
9 comments:
Hasn't she done a wonderful job as Secretary of State for Transport though!?!
She certainly deserves the £18k tax free "resettlement allowance" for resigning...
Perhaps she's copying Gordon's speech from yesterday - "My children are not props - they are an excuse"!
Never heard of her!
18K for quitting your job!
Nice work if you can get it, and tax free is just taking the p*ss.
just remember that this is £18k on top of her MP's pay. If she were being made redundant then she could get up to £30k tax-free. However, she is still goingm to remain an MP. Soi why the ex gratia payment? A resigning company director doesn't normally get such a payment. This is just the elected representatives taking the piss. Should there be a referendum on MP's pay and governmental resignation pay?
Snafu, Graeme, you've got me intrigued now.
Somebody will have to look into what her salary has been (adjusted for time off for having four kids, only one of which was educationally subnormal) plus gold plated pension pot plus second home allowance plus lavish expenses plus £18,000 tax free Golden Piss Off.
Oh come on, chaps. She'll have a nice job, probably in journalism, before you can say "up yer chuff". She's just making sure she's first in the queue before the whole bloody cabinet is looking for that sort of job.
P.S She is part of the Labour faction that believes State Schools are fine for the proles' children, but not necessarily for hers. So's Hatty Harbinger. And Dianne Abbott. Do I see a correlation here?
I'd have resigned for half that.
Can't stand the crocodile tears. Kelly is a hypocrite. She was instrumental in shutting down special education units where parents wanted their children out of mainstream schooling because they had enough sense to realize it was doing neither their children nor any of the others any good. She insisted that specialist education, such as dyslexia and dyspraxia support, could be provided in the classroom, but not for her little poppet. (Actually, I think they can in many cases, but dyspraxia is more difficult as they behave physically differently. I'd rather handle dyslexia than dyspraxia any day of the week).
Libby Purves named the school the child was sent to as she writes on the topics of both education and religion. The school has specialist support, but to go as far as saying that it caters for the educationally sub-normal is pushing it a bit. Even at their prices, when it comes to the tough ADHD cases, they'd hand them on to another school and they don't guarantee that a child will go in to the senior forms if it can't cope with the academic requirements. This is a school for bright children who have some perceptual problems, but serious cognitive disability would be out of their league.
The Purves article was mysteriously pulled from the Times website - you have to have known it was there - possibly because she pointed out what really embarrassed Kelly; the place is known as a leading protestant prep school. However, since it preps children for leading Catholic schools too, that's possibly the wrong conclusion. Far more embarassing and exactly what Kelly didn't want coming out is the school's ordinary prospectus.
Here's what a Labour person believes her child deserves, only not yours. Under no circumstances must you be allowed to exercise the choices available to her. Your bright child will have to take its chances.
"Within most preparatory and primary schools there are bright underachievers; boys whose academic performance falls far below their potential as indicated by their assessed intelligence. This failure to thrive is often the result of some form of specific learning difficulty which, either alone or in combination with character or temperament, makes smooth and easy progress, especially in larger and more traditional school environments, almost impossible.
These pupils grow impatient and depressed at their lack of success. Knowing they are bright, their parents understandably have high educational expectations. There is evidently a mismatch between the conventional teaching programme and the individual child's needs. Under these circumstances, performance is most unlikely to reach levels that permit parental hopes and expectations to be achieved."
More:
"...the curriculum is similar to that found in conventional preparatory schools, meeting the requirements of senior school entry examinations, and in particular, Common Entrance. There the similarity ends. The teaching methods and structure of the timetable are specially designed to take every boy's learning difficulties into account in every subject, thus enabling pupils to maximise their academic potential both at Common Entrance and subsequently within the mainstream of secondary schooling."
"What makes [this school] very special, however, is its approach to the teaching of the academic programme, which never loses sight of the ultimate objective - a formal written examination at 13+.
Every pupil has his particular learning needs defined for him, with his strengths and weaknesses fully identified. Teaching methods may involve a combination of aural, oral, visual or practical approaches to learning, as diagnosed by the staff. Where required, the services of the School's highly qualified Speech, Language and Occupational Therapists are available. The ability to make effective and practical use of Information Technology is essential for all pupils, particularly those with any specific learning difficulties. All boys are therefore taught to touch type. The use of lap top computers is also strongly encouraged in every area of the curriculum, and if required machines may be purchased through the school."
"The small size ... encourages every pupil to retain his individuality without facing undue peer group pressures, and to become conscious of the value and worth of every member of the community. Such an atmosphere not only builds confidence, but promotes personal happiness, both of which are necessary prerequisites for academic success."
And so on.
Kelly had used the old Blair trick of arguing that the privacy of the child trumped public interest, and usually the courts - especially Eady MJ - will usually go for this.
The samples from the prospectus are relevant; the public should have been able to make a decision about someone who claims to be so goddam concerned about everybody but unhesitatingly pulls her own kid out and claims special dibs - for which we pay - for herself, and then, when there are some facilities in the state sector, ruthlessly pulls the ladder up behind her so that no scruffy oiks from the lower orders might claim similar advantages, no matter how much tax we are paying for them.
WOAR, excellent research as usual, but you let yourself down by saying that Ruth acted 'ruthlessly'.
Post a Comment